← New Search ↗ Social Card

Matt Wood Elite Prospects ↗

Position: Forward DOB: 2000-08-31 Country: USA
No commitment set

Set Commitment

NCAA Division I

NCAA D3 / D2

Career Trajectory
Dashed = raw PPG  ·  Solid blue = age-adjusted NCAAe-PPG  ·  Green = actual college PPG
Junior Seasons
Season Team League GP G A Pts PPG NCAAe-PPG Age-Adj D3e-PPG Age-Adj
2017-18 Philadelphia Jr. Flyers EHLP 44 28 32 60 1.364 0.2574 0.2722 0.3071 0.3247
2018-19 Philadelphia Jr. Flyers EHL 6 0 0 0 0.000
2019-20 Richmond Generals USPHL-Premier 44 35 31 66 1.500 0.4944 0.4944 0.5103 0.5103
2020-21 Richmond Generals USPHL-Premier 44 24 38 62 1.409 0.4644 0.4644 0.4794 0.4794
Blue = NCAAe (D1 anchor)   Green = D3e (D3 anchor)   COVID-flagged seasons highlighted in yellow
College Seasons (Historical)
Season School Div Conference Year GP G A Pts PPG
2024-25 Utica D3 UCHC SR 30 9 22 31 1.033
2023-24 Utica D3 UCHC JR 28 12 17 29 1.036
2022-23 Utica D3 UCHC SO 22 7 10 17 0.773
2021-22 Utica D3 UCHC FR 11 2 5 7 0.636
Pre-College Projection vs. Actual Freshman Year
Projected PPG
0.24
before college
Actual FR PPG
0.64
2021-22 · Utica
+160.1% vs. projection

College Pathway Likelihood (based on 40 comparables)

2%
NCAA D2/D3
0%
Club / ACHA
95%
Other

NCAAe Rankings

#7682
Forward overall
#308
Forward born in 2000

D1 Comparables

USHL · 2012-13 · 0.39 PPG
→ Michigan Tech (0.59 D1 FR PPG)
0.25 Strong
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.46 PPG
→ Nebraska Omaha (0.29 D1 FR PPG)
0.30 Developing
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.44 PPG
→ Minnesota (0.75 D1 FR PPG)
0.29 Strong
NCAAe PPG
USHL · 2012-13 · 0.36 PPG
→ Alabama-Huntsville
0.23 No data
NCAAe PPG
NTDP-U18 · 2012-13 · 0.35 PPG
→ New Hampshire (0.43 D1 FR PPG)
0.27 Average
NCAAe PPG

D2/3 Comparables

Neumann · 2002-03
0.500 Average
actual D2/3 PPG
Plymouth State · 2005-06
0.960 Strong
actual D2/3 PPG
Concordia · 2014-15
0.250 Developing
actual D2/3 PPG

How to read this: NCAAe and D3e factors convert a player's junior PPG into expected NCAA scoring at the D1 or D3 level. Harder conferences → lower projected PPG for the same player. A strong junior player (e.g. USHL 0.90 PPG) will project much higher in NESCAC than Big Ten because the D3 scoring environment is lower-difficulty.

Strength factor: conferences above 1.0 are harder than average; below 1.0 are easier. The formula is: Base NCAAe PPG ÷ Conference Strength = Projected PPG.